Advertisement

Journal of International Entrepreneurship

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 486–503 | Cite as

A cross-country comparison of the effects of institutions on internationally oriented innovation

  • Irina ErvitsEmail author
  • Malgorzata Zmuda
Article
  • 137 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, we probe the relationship between institutions and internationally oriented innovation. For the first time, we use Patent Cooperation Treaty statistics as a new source of national-level data on the inventive activities of internationally oriented innovators, which we refer to as “global innovators.” One third of global innovators are small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). We apply these new data and investigate the effects of corruption and business climate on patenting activity. It is ascertained herein that the inventive activity of global innovators has a linear relationship with institutional factors, while there is no observed relationship between the quality of the institutional environment and PCT patenting by multinational enterprises (MNEs).

Keywords

Innovation Invention Institutions Inventive activity Patent statistics Corruption Institutional quality 

Abstract (German)

In diesem Artikel erforschen wir den Zusammenhang zwischen Institutionen und international ausgerichteten erfinderischer Tätigkeit. Zum ersten Mal untersuchen wir, ob PCT-Patentanmeldungen auf nationaler Ebene als eine neue Datenquelle für die erfinderischen Aktivitäten der neuen Art von international ausgerichteten Unternehmen, die als „global innovators“ bezeichnet werden können. Das Drittel von global innovators besteht aus Klein- und Mittelunternehmen. Wir anwenden diese neue Datenquelle und untersuchen die Auswirkungen von Korruption und Geschäftsklima auf international ausgerichtete Erfinder. Es wurde festgestellt, dass es einen linearen Zusammenhang zwischen den Institutionen und erfinderischer Tätigkeit der global innovators gibt. Und es gibt keine Verbindung zwischen den Patentanmeldungen von großen multinationalen Firmen und institutionellen Gegebenheiten.

JEL classification

O30 O38 O57 L25 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers and the editor for their careful and sympathetic reading of our manuscript and their insightful comments and suggestions. The contribution of M. Zmuda was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland (2015/17/B/HS4/02075).

References

  1. Ahlstrom D, Bruton GD (2010) Rapid institutional shifts and the co-evolution of entrepreneurial firms in transition economies. Entrep Theory Pract 34(3):531–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arvanitis S, Bolli T (2012) A comparison of national and international innovation cooperation in five European countries. Rev Ind Organ 43(3):163–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayyagari M, Demirguc-Kunt A, Maksimovic V (2010) Are innovating firms victims or perpetrators? Tax evasion, bribe payments and the role of external finance in developing countries. Policy Research Working Paper Series from The World Bank No 5389Google Scholar
  4. Barro RJ (1996) Determinants of economic growth: a cross-country empirical study. NBER Working Paper No 5698 (August)Google Scholar
  5. Bartlett CA, Beamish PW (2011) Transnational management: text cases and readings in cross border management, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Burr RidgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Birkinshaw J, Hood N (2001) Unleash innovation in foreign subsidiaries. Harv Bus Rev 79(3):131–138Google Scholar
  7. Broekel T, Brenner T, Buerger M (2015) An investigation of the relation between cooperation intensity and the innovative success of German regions. Spat Econ Anal 10(1):52–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cantwell J (1995) The globalization of technology: what remains of the product cycle model? Camb J Econ 19(1):155–174Google Scholar
  9. Cantwell J, Janne O (1999) Technological globalization and innovative centers: the role of corporate technological. Res Policy 28(2/3):119–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cieslik J, Kaciak E (2009) The speed of internationalization of entrepreneurial start-ups in a transition environment. J Dev Entrep 14(4):375–392Google Scholar
  11. Comanor WS, Scherer F (1969) Patent statistics as a measure of technical change. J Polit Econ 77(3):392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corcoran A, Gillanders R (2015) Foreign direct investment and the ease of doing business. Rev World Econ 151(1):103–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Descotes MR, Walliser B, Guo X (2007) Capturing the relevant institutional profile for exporting SMEs: empirical evidence from France and Romania. Int Manag Rev 3(3):16–26Google Scholar
  14. DiPietro WR (2009) Country innovativeness and the difficulty of doing business. J Glob Bus Issues 3(2):69–75Google Scholar
  15. Dosi G, Pavitt K, Soete L (1990) The economics of technical change and international trade. Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, PisaGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunning J (2001) The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: past, present and future. Int J Econ Bus 8(2):173–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Easterly W, Levine R (2003) Tropics, germs, and crops: how endowments influence economic development. J Monet Econ 50(1):3–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elango B (2012) How industry dynamics influence the internationalization–performance relationship: evidence from technology-intensive firms. Thunderbird Int Bus Rev 54:653–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ermasova N, Ermasov S (2013) The impact of policy risk on innovation activity in Russia. SAM Adv Manag J 78(4):23–34Google Scholar
  20. Fields KJ (1995) Enterprise and the state in Korea and Taiwan. N.Y.: IthacaGoogle Scholar
  21. Gabrielsson M (2005) Branding strategies of born globals. J Int Entrep 3(3):199–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilpin R (2001) Global political economy: understanding the international economic order. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  23. Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91:481–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griliches Z (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. J Econ Lit 28(4):1661–1707Google Scholar
  25. Griliches Z (1994) Productivity, R&D and the data constraint. Presidential address delivered at the one-hundred sixth meeting of the American Economic Association, 4 January 1994. Boston, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  26. Griliches Z, Schmookler J (1963) Inventing and maximizing. Am Econ Rev 53(4):725–729Google Scholar
  27. Halkos GE, Tzeremes NG (2010) Corruption and economic efficiency: panel data evidence. Glob Econ Rev 39(4):441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoskisson RE, Wright M, Filatotchev I, Peng MW (2013) Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: the influence of institutions and factor markets. J Manag Stud 50(7):1295–1321Google Scholar
  29. Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2002) Patents, citations and innovations: a window on the knowledge economy. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  30. King JL, Gurbaxani V, Kraemer KL, McFarlan FW, Raman KS, Yap CS (1994) Institutional factors in information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res 5(2):139–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuznets S (1962) Inventive activity: problems of definition and measurement. In: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity (ed) National Bureau of Economic Research. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  32. Lu Y, Tsang EWK, Peng MW (2008) Knowledge management and innovation strategy in the Asia Pacific: toward an institution-based view. Asia Pac J Manag 25(3):361–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mazzarol T, Clark DN, Reboud S, Gough NS, Olson P (2014) Perceptions of innovation climate and the influence of others: a multi-country study of SMEs. Int J Innov Manag, 18(1): 1450009–1–1450009–24Google Scholar
  34. McNaughton RB (2003) The number of export markets that a firm serves: process models versus the born-global phenomenon. J Int Entrep 1(3):297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mellahi K, Demirbag M, Wood G (2012) Regulatory context and corruption. Int Stud Manag Organ 42(3):13–34Google Scholar
  36. Minh TT, Hjortsø CN (2015) How institutions influence SME innovation and networking practices: the case of Vietnamese agribusiness. J Small Bus Manag 53:209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mongay J, Filipescu DA (2012) Are corruption and ease of doing business correlated? An analysis of 172 nations. In: Harris S, Kuivalainen O, Stoyanova V (eds) International business. The Academy of International Business. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Mueller DC (1966) Patents, research and development and the measurement of inventive activity. J Ind Econ 15(1):26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mungiu-Pippidi A (2015) Corruption: good governance powers innovation. Nature 518:295–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Narula R (2014) Exploring the paradox of competence-creating subsidiaries: balancing bandwidth and dispersion in MNEs. Int J Strateg Manag 47(1–2):4–15Google Scholar
  41. Narula R (2016) The modern MNE as an efficient meta-integrator: emerging market MNEs need to foster internal embeddedness to succeed. John H Dunning Centre for International Business Discussion Papers, Discussion Paper No. JHD-2016-02Google Scholar
  42. North D (1991) Institutions. J Econ Perspect 5(1):97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Omer N, van Burg E, Peters RM, Visser K (2015) Internationalization as a “work-around” strategy: how going abroad can help SMEs overcome local constraints. J Dev Entrep 20 (2): 1550011–1-22Google Scholar
  44. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2005) The measurement of scientific and technological activities: guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data: Oslo Manual, Third Edition. Paris: OECDGoogle Scholar
  45. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Statistical Office of the European Communities (1996) Oslo manual: guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group (2012). Fifth Session, Geneva, WIPO, May 3. http://www.wipo.int/tools/en/gsearch.html?cx=016458537594905406506%3Ahmturfwvzzq&cof=FORID%3A11&q=PCT+and+small+business. Accessed on February 10, 2015
  47. Paunov C (2016) Corruption’s asymmetric impacts on firm innovation. J Dev Econ 118:216–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pavitt K, Soete L (1980) Innovative activities and export shares: some comparisons between industries and countries. In: Pavitt K (ed) Technical innovation and British economic performance. Macmillan, London, pp 38–66Google Scholar
  49. Ramamurti R (2012) What is really different about emerging market multinationals? Glob Strateg J 2:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rennie M (1993) Global competitiveness: born global. McKinsey Q 4:45–52Google Scholar
  51. Rodrik D, Subramanian A, Trebbi F (2004) Institutions rule: the primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. J Econ Growth 9(2):131–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scherer FM (1965) Corporate inventive output, profits and growth. J Polit Econ 73(3):290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scherer FM (1992) Competing for comparative advantage through technological innovation. Business and the Contemporary World, Summer, pp 30–39Google Scholar
  54. Schmookler J (1966) Invention and economic growth. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schmookler J, Brownlee O (1962) Determinants of inventive activity. Am Econ Rev 52(2):165–176Google Scholar
  56. Shirokova GV, Tsukanova TV (2012) The influence of institutional environment on the degree of SMEs internationalization from transition. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg State University 1:27–56Google Scholar
  57. Simon H (1992) Lessons from Germany’s midsize giants. Harv Bus Rev 70(2):115–123Google Scholar
  58. Sood J, DuBois F (1995) The use of patent statistics to measure and predict international competitiveness. Int Trade J 9(3):363–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stachowicz-Stanusch A (2013) The relationship between national intellectual capital and corruption: a cross-national study. J Bus Econ Manag 14(1):114–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Steel G, Rinne T, Fairweather J (2012) Personality, nations, and innovation: relationship between personality traits and national innovation scores. Cross-Cult Res 46(1):3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Svensson J (2003) Who must pay bribes and how much? Evidence from a cross section of firms. Q J Econ 118(1):207–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Taylor MZ (2009) International linkages and national innovation rates: an exploratory probe. Rev Policy Res 26(1–2):127–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tebaldi E, Elmslie B (2013) Does institutional quality impact innovation? Evidence from cross-country patent grant data. Appl Econ 45(7):887–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Veracierto M (2008) Corruption and innovation. Econ Perspect 32(1):29–40Google Scholar
  65. Volchek D, Jantunen A, Saarenketo S (2013) The institutional environment for international entrepreneurship in Russia: reflections on growth decisions and performance in SMEs. J Int Entrep 11:320–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. WIPO Statistics Database (2015) https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf. Accessed on January, 2015
  67. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2014) Protecting your inventions abroad: frequently asked questions about the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) 2014. http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/faqs.html#note1. Accessed on January 13, 2015
  68. Yamakawa Y, Peng MW, Deeds DL (2008) What drives new ventures to internationalize from emerging to developed economies? Entrep Theory Pract 32(1):59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zanfei A (2000) Transnational firms and the changing organization of innovative activities. Camb J Econ 24:515–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhu Y, Wittmann X, Peng M (2012) Institution-based barriers to innovation in SMEs in China. Asia Pac J Manag 29(4):1131–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cologne Business SchoolKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations